Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dragovich v. Buice, 02-1309 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1309 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 15, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1309 NICK DRAGOVICH, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH M. BUICE, a/k/a ModChipUSA, a/k/a A&M Enterprises; ANDRE WALLIMAN, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-418) Submitted: November 14, 2002 Decided: November 15, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1309 NICK DRAGOVICH, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH M. BUICE, a/k/a ModChipUSA, a/k/a A&M Enterprises; ANDRE WALLIMAN, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-418) Submitted: November 14, 2002 Decided: November 15, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph M. Buice, Andre Walliman, Appellants Pro Se. Douglas Wayne Kenyon, Keri C. Prince, Laurie J. Bremer, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph M. Buice and Andre Walliman appeal the district court’s order entering default judgment against them in this copyright infringement and breach of contract action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dragovich v. Buice, No. CA-00-418 (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2000). Additionally, we deny the Appellants’ motions for a stay of discovery in Dragovich’s collection proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia and to expedite consideration of the motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer